Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,993   Posts: 1,524,261   Online: 1005
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2

    TMax100 in Xtol trouble?

    I have been forced to move and no longer have my darkroom. I therefore am developing at the kitchen sink, scanning and printing by that (other method). To facilitate the change I switched from shooting LF/4x5, TriX souped in HC110 to shooting 645/120, TMax100 processed in Patterson FX39 in small Nikor tanks, a combination I had success with in 35mm. Alas FX39 has poofed and I picked up Xtol.

    I print to 16x20 at times. For this the TMax100/FX39 seemed OK but I just ran into trouble with the TMax100/Xtol. I have had a processing batch come out very thin. I processed 4 rolls of 120 Tmax100 rated at 100 ISO with Xtol 1:2 for 14 mins at 68º, agitation 4 inversions every min. The Xtol was mixed just 45 days ago and kept in a full container. I always run one shot.

    I realized I don’t really understand this developer and ran a speed test first. I changed to the Kodak recommendation of dilution 1:1 @ 68º for 9.5 mins. agitation 4 inversions every 30 secs. Test showed good zone 1 density at ISO 100 and could be rated at ISO125. I then ran a test to determine expansion /compression capabilities. Shooting a stucco wall I exposed frames from zone 1 to 9 with zone 5 at the ISO 100 on 2 rolls of film for N and N+1 processing and ISO 80 for N-1 processing. Results were disturbing.

    N processing was same as film speed test Xtol 1:1, 9.5 mins., agitation 4 inversions/30 secs. Looks good except I noticed slight uneven development noticeable mainly in the higher zones.
    N+1 processing was Xtol 1:1, 11.5 mins., agitation 5 inversions/30 secs. Looks good with move of zone 5 to 6.
    N-1 processing was Xtol 1:1, 7.5 mins., agitation 3 inversions/30 secs. Looks terrible with very uneven development everywhere. Zone 7 moved to 5.

    So I am in a pickle. I just lost 4 rolls from an important shoot with 14 more rolls waiting processing. I threw out the Xtol. Subsequent reading indicated it can be finicky. I don’t know if I mismixed it or if it is just not capable of plus/minus development. I want plus/minus capability. While it may not be that useful for scanning, I may (hopefully) build a darkroom again and want to be able to print current negs, in an enlarger. To tell the truth, I am not all that thrilled with my digital B&W prints, but love the color.

    I am not in love with TMax100 either. The grain is very fine but just doesn’t have the snap I am used to. I also do not like the pink base. Sometimes it fixes out, most times not. So I am open to suggestions of where to go from here. I should mention I photograph natural and man made subject details and smaller landscapes.

    Thanks for any help, Jim

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    703
    Yep, Xtol can be finicky. I've been up and down this developer and done just about everything that can be done with it, and yet I still love it and what it does.
    First off, if you don't feel you really can get comfortable with this developer, I reccommend not using it. There's a lot of other good ones to use and give great results.
    IF you feel like you can do Xtol, do it right. Distilled water on mixing, use Only plastic mixing tools and containers, store in dark glass bottles, with Saran wrap sealing tops.
    Then, there are a few quirks that make Xtol different. Just as agitation for Rodinal works different than D-76, Xtol is different as well. I've found that active, consistent, random agitation for the first Whole Minute works to eliminate any uneven development. As well, adding more agitation doesn't add an extreme amount of grain, so my regular agitation is pretty active as well.
    As well, the Kodak website on Xtol has a ton of info about it. You need to really figure out the numbers correctly, I was getting thinner negs than I liked for one roll until I saw that I was using the wrong grouping, I was using the number for small tank rather than the *replenished* deep tank number, and now that film is perfect. The Kodak numbers are quite comprehensive, and provide contrast index so you can adjust to them.
    Most people seem to dislike Xtol, some actively hate. I've used it consistently since it came out, and love it, and will continue to use it.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I used Xtol and liked it, but I experianced a sudden death of a gallon or 5 liters when Kodak stopped making it in quarts, my stock was only a couple of months old when it died. From what I understand, from current users, Kodak may have taken care of the sudden death issue, but if you had a older packet it may have been on its way out. If this is an important project I would consider using TMAX or DDX, but first shoot a test roll to fine tune your times.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by jimrs View Post
    o
    I also do not like the pink base. Sometimes it fixes out, most times not. So I am open to suggestions of where to go from here.
    Thanks for any help, Jim
    After the film dries expose the strip to sunshine for 15-30 minutes or more to remvoe the pink/magenta. You can do this to any other film that has a color cast to it. Good luck solving your other problem.


  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,221
    Images
    148
    Sounds like underexposure and under development.

    I've been using Tmax100 since it was release and it's a great 50 ISO film, but at 100 ISO lacks shadow detail. I use Xtol at FS and replenish my working solution, and use a dev time of 9mins at 20C.

    So 14 mins @100 ISO in Xtol 1+2 seem far to short a time.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 01-10-2007 at 12:24 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: mistake

  6. #6
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,177
    Images
    291
    I have seen gorgeous prints made from that combination. I'm afraid Xtol has a reputation for being problematic with exhaustion, and unless you test it on a regular basis with test strips or similar, it could give you a nasty surprise here and there. I much prefer one-shot developers simply because it seems more dependable. My three favorite developers for Tmax is FA-1027 (from Fine Art Photo Supply), Rodinal (not fine grain like Xtol), and Pyrocat-HD (not fine grain either, but is staining, so some of the grain is masked). The FA-1027 is very clean working which may work to your advantage using the "other method".

    - Thom
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    FWIW, some of the discussions of "XTOL sudden death" have focused on the combination of T-Max (100 more than 400, IIRC) with XTOL (particularly when diluted more than 1+1). My impression is that this is a somewhat risky combination -- but then again, XTOL failure is a subject that generates more speculation than cold hard facts, and I guess I'm not contributing much to the cold hard facts in this paragraph.

    I can say that I like T-Max 100 in DS-12, which is a mix-it-yourself metol/ascorbic acid developer. This developer does tend to go bad quickly when stored in half-full bottles, but when mixed fresh or stored in full bottles, it works quite nicely with T-Max 100, IMHO. I mixed my latest batch at 5x concentration, which has helped its keeping qualities.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    In my experience Pyrocat - MC also works great with TMAX-100.

    Pyrocat - MC is Pyrocatechol/Metol/Ascorbate. The stock A solution, mixed in propylene glycol, has an extremely long shelf life (years). The B solution is Sodium Carbonate and water
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    I would expect that Jordan's Instant Mytol would also work very well with Kodax TMAX 100 - you should be able to use it like XTOL, but with no worries about SUDDEN DEATH.

    See: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum223/...ant-mytol.html
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2
    Thanks to all who have written. I am going to try and work further with TMax/Xtol because the negs that have come out are really very good at least to my inexperienced eye. Looking at my original post I see how frustrated I was. It's a new day.

    Ridewaves - I will be more careful in mixing and storing Xtol and increase agitation at the beginning of dev. I think lack of agtation may be part of the problem.

    Ian Grant - I agree I probably underdeveloped. I was extrapolating from a recommendation from someone using continuous agitation processing and I must have missed. I now don't believe the dev. was exausted, just improper processing on my part. But 9 mins a FS seems long to me based on my N and N+1 test. 9.5 mins at 1:1 seemed to have good shadow detail, just a small amount of uneven dev. As far as underexposure, even though I rate my TMax at ISO 100, I expose important shadows at zone IV so I guess I'm shooting at ISO 50.

    Edwardv - Never heard of sun bleaching the pink. Will try it.

    Thanks again, Jim

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin